Thinking to Believe

In 2003 the Episcopal Church consecrated the first openly gay bishop, Gene Robinson.  Now, they’ve consecrated an openly lesbian, Mary Glasspool, as an assistant bishop for the Los Angeles diocese.

BTW, I know I’ve been pretty inactive lately.  I’ve been busy studying out a topic I plan to blog on soon.

Many who claim that homosexuality is morally benign claim that same-sex attraction is “in their genes.”  Does this appeal to biological determinism help their case?  No.  No moral truth follows from biological truth.  Even if it were true that same-sex attraction was biologically determined (something for which there is no solid evidence), it would no more follow that homosexuality is, therefore, morally benign, than it would follow that pedophilia is morally benign if a genetic link to pedophilia was discovered.

Furthermore, if biologically predisposed/determined behaviors are excused from moral condemnation, then on what basis could bigotry against homosexuals be condemned if the desire to discriminate against homosexuals is caused by one’s genes?  If hatred of homosexuality is biologically determined, and thus it is morally benign.  After all, such a person would be born that way!  Surely no one would buy this argument, and yet it is logically equivalent to the argument that homosexuality is morally benign because it is biologically determined.  If we have reason to reject one form of the argument, we have reason to reject the other.  The fact of the matter is that biology tells us nothing about morality.

The Episcopal church has decided it will continue to ordain openly gay bishops (as well as all other levels of the ministry), in defiance of the moratorium the Anglican Church issued in 2005.  It will be interesting to see how the Anglican Church responds.  Will they disfellowship the Episcopal Church in America, and recognize the newly created and more conservative Anglican Church in American instead? 

HT: Albert Mohler

Dr. Russell Moore of Southern Baptist Seminary posed the following ethical question to his students for their final exam, and then asked them how they would respond as a pastor:

Joan is a fifty year-old woman who has been visiting your church for a little over a year. She sits on the third row from the back, and usually exits during the closing hymn, often with tears in her eyes. Joan approaches you after the service on Sunday to tell you that she wants to follow Jesus as her Lord.

You ask Joan a series of diagnostic questions about her faith, and it is clear she understands the gospel. She still seems distressed though. When you ask if she’s repented of her sin, she starts to cry and grit her teeth.

“I don’t know,” she says. “I don’t know how…I don’t know where to start…Can I meet with you privately?”

You, Joan, and a godly Titus 2-type women’s ministry leader in your church meet in your office right away, and Joan tells you her story.

She wasn’t born Joan. She was born John. From early on in John’s life, though, he felt as though he was “a woman trapped in a man’s body.” Joan says, “I don’t mean to repeat that old shopworn cliché, but it really is what I felt like.”

(more…)

Everyone knows that homosexuality is biologically determined.  The only problem is that to-date, there is no evidence demonstrating any biological link to same-sex attraction.  Several attempts have been made, but none have succeeded, despite the media hype suggesting otherwise.  For example, Simon LeVay’s study on the hypothalamus is often touted as proving that same-sex attraction is caused by the brain, and yet LeVay himself said of his study, “It’s important to stress what I didn’t find.  I did not prove that homosexuality was genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay.  I didn’t show that gay men were born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work.  Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.”

LeVay is not alone.  Those who work in this field know that no biological link has been found, and yet some choose to allow the myth to continue, because as LeVay himself noted, “People who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights.”  For example, consider American Psychological Association member, Lisa Diamond.  Recently she wrote a book about sexuality in which she made the following, stunning admission:

Some activists feel that the climate is not yet right for such a shift in our thinking about sexual freedom.  Given the recent resurgence of conservative antigay activism (much of it focused on banning same-sex marriage), it may well be that for now, the safest way to advocate for lesbian/gay/bisexual rights is to keep propagating a deterministic model: sexual minorities are born that way and can never be otherwise.  If this is an easier route to acceptance (which may in fact be the case), is it really so bad that it is inaccurate?^[1]

In other words, so long as the myth achieves the normalization of homosexuality, those who are in the know need not concern themselves with correcting the public’s misunderstanding.  The end justifies the means.  Such is the nature of advocacy.

But what if a biological link was discovered tomorrow?  What follows from this, morally speaking?  Nothing.  Genetics cannot tell us anything about what is moral.  Genetics are descriptive, describing the way things are.  Morality, however, is prescriptive, prescribing the way things ought to be.

Just because one has a natural disposition toward some desire and/or to engage in some behavior does not mean that desire/behavior is moral.  We can desire many things that are immoral.  The cause of the desire—whether biological or otherwise—cannot change the moral nature of the act itself.  What if a biological link was found for incestual desires?  Would that make incest morally acceptable?  What if a biological link was discovered for pedophilia?  Would that make pedophilia morally acceptable?  Would we have to consider such desires and behavior “normal?”  Of course not!  The same is true of homosexuality.  If a biological link is discovered, it may help us to better understand the origin of same-sex attraction, but it can do nothing to better our understanding of sexual morality.

Humans regularly desire that which is immoral.  A large part of moral and ethical behavior is the suppression of desires that come naturally.  This applies no less to the person struggling with same-sex desires than it does to the person struggling with opposite-sex desires for someone other than his/her spouse.

Are same-sex attractions biologically determined?  Most people are under the impression that they are.  Organizations such as the American Psychological Association (APA), have helped propagate the idea.  For example, in the 1998 version of their “Answers to Your Questions about Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality” brochure, they say “there is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person’s sexuality.”  The truth, however, is that no biological link has been discovered to-date. 

In an unexpected turn of events, the APA has softened its language, replacing the above sentence with a more modest claim in an updated version of their brochure (now called “Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality”) (click here for the HTML version).  Now it reads:

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

While I think there is little reason to doubt that social influences are largely responsible for same-sex attraction, I appreciate their more honest assessment of the biological evidence.

HT: NARTH

On 6/27/08, the Presbyterian Church USA made several moves to sanction the ordination of homosexual clergy at their General Assembly. Now the measures go the 173 presbyteries for vote. It is expected that the will pass. See Albert Mohler’s discussion of this historic and lamentable event.

Go here for the story.

A United Methodist pastor has undergone a sex-change surgery from female to male. The ruling body does not see a problem with this. I bet the Presbyterian Church USA is mad that the Methodists beat them to this! These two organizations seem to be in a competition of whose ministers can be more sexually deviant. John Wesley is probably turning in his grave right now.Update: Arthur uncovered a news article indicating that the Presbyterians did beat the Methodists to it. See the comments section.